There’s a fantastic book written by an expert in the field that you can get here
The bad faith argument that IQ tests are only good for white people is nonsense. If that were the case, whites would score on average higher. Why is a different race and culture scoring higher? The argument just doesn’t make any sense.
IQ tests are still widely used in psychometrics, which is one of the best replicated subfields of psychology, and are well respected by the relevant researchers. One kind of evidence that intelligence is a singular thing is that cognitive scores from different kinds of tests correlate highly with each other. The multiple intelligences theory of Gardner, on the other hand, has no evidence to support it and intelligence researchers do not generally believes it. IQ also correlates with a ton of stuff we care about, e.g., academic success, job performance, income, life expectancy, and a ton of other stuff. If you'd like to learn more, Intelligence: All That Matters is a very good non-technical introduction.
P.S. I haven't watched Shaun's video (yet), but I think it's better practice to cite scientific criticisms if they are available.
'General intelligence' and IQ are well validated:
There is a strange disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public mind on intelligence testing. Just mention IQ testing in polite company, and you'll sternly be informed that IQ tests don't measure anything "real", and only reflect how good you are at doing IQ tests; that they ignore important traits like "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences"; and that those who are interested in IQ testing must be elitists, or maybe something more sinister.
Yet the scientific evidence is clear: IQ tests are extraordinarily useful. IQ scores are related to a huge variety of important life outcomes like educational success, income, and even life expectancy, and biological studies have shown they are genetically influenced and linked to measures of the brain. Studies of intelligence and IQ are regularly published in the world's top scientific journals.
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
That article basically has some complaints about how IQ has been used historically, but doesn’t really contain any critiques of the modern IQ concept. Or at least, not any critiques that actually make any sense if you know anything about the field.
You should know that within actual research psychology, the validity of IQ is not really controversial at all (of course its history is controversial, as is the hereditarian racial hypothesis— but not IQ itself).
I recommend this short book written by Stuart Richie (who is critical of the hereditarian hypothesis, but is a highly qualified researcher in the field): https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
No, psychologists of intelligence generally. And I did specify, studying intelligence, which is only a modestly sized sub-field of psychology, and one often misrepresented and misunderstood even by other psychologists. Stuart Ritchie's <em>Intelligence: All That Matters</em> is a great source on why IQ is still a big deal and a useful measurement.
> Størrelsen på økonomien er utelukkende et mål på nettopp det: størrelsen på økonomien.
Her snakker du som er Rødt-medlem: Null forståelse av hva økonomi er for noe. Størrelsen på økonomien måler hvor mye av verdi for mennesker som produseres. Tror du forskjellen på levestandard mellom Norge og Uganda (eller Norge nå og for hundre år siden) er at vi er mye flinkere enn dem til å fordele godene likt? Nei, selvfølgelig ikke; forskjellen er at vi produserer mange flere goder.
Slike diskusjoner ender alltid med USA fordi folk på ytre venstre først og fremst er motivert av hatet til USA. Jeg har selv vokst opp med dette, og med å få høre at nå er det like før USA går i dass.
> Fordelingen i USA er så skjev at 8 mennesker eier mer enn de 70% på bunnen til sammen.
Helt feil.
> Du mener at det kapitalistiske systemet fungerer fint.
At det fungerer fint er ikke noe jeg mener, men et faktum: Vi blir stadig rikere, og enda viktigere: De fattige i verden blir stadig rikere.
Det du burde gjøre er å starte med å spørre deg hvordan vi kan få til det, så se på data og konkludere derfra. I stedet starter du med konklusjonen (altså ideologien) og forsøker å finne på en begrunnelse etterpå.
> Jo, IQ er absolutt pseudovitenskap. Du kan begynne med å lese denne studien gjort i Kanada i 2012:
He he, har du googlet nå. Denne studien er sikkert ikke så ille som denne forvirrede artikkelen om den (en bra tommelfingerregel er å aldri lese noe som bruker ordet "debunk". Den påstår at IQ er den felles faktoren. Det er feil, den felles faktoren kalles g, IQ måler derimot hvordan man scorer på en IQ-test.) Påstanden i denne studien er at intelligens kan dekomponeres i tre ulike faktorer, ikke i én (g). De fleste innen intelligensforskning er uenige i det, siden slike faktorer alltid korrelerer så mye med hverandre at det er mer riktig å beskrive det ved en enkelt underliggende faktor, men hvorfor tror du at dersom man velger å beskrive intelligens med tre faktorer i stedet for én så viser det at intelligens er "pseudovitenskap". Da er vel også denne studien, som vil ha tre faktorer "pseudovitenskap" da.
Ærlig talt så er vel svaret at du bare googlet "debunk IQ" eller noe slikt og ikke skjønte noe særlig av det du leste. Hvis du vil vite litt om dette temaet - og det kan være lurt - anbefaler jeg denne korte og oppdaterte boka: https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
> befolkningsgrupper er så genetisk ulike at de kan defineres bort fra hverandre, eller deles opp i kategorier (som, tja, la oss kalle det raser?).
Jeg er uinteressert i om du vil kalle det raser eller ikke men vi vet begge at det er forskjell på forskjellige befolkningsgrupper. Vi er begge i stand til å sortere en gruppe folk med 100% nøyaktighet som f.eks etnisk Kinesere, Norsker eller Ugandere. Vi vet også at disse forskjellene ikke bare er utenpå: Innen medisinen tar vi hensyn til etnisitet fordi forskjellige grupper reagerer forskjellig på medisin osv. Men kanskje du mener forskjellene stopper ved nakken?
> Og mener du helt seriøst at tidligere kolonier i Afrika har hatt de samme mulighetene til å bygge opp systemer som fungerer godt som vi har her i Norge?
Koloniforklaringen ja, den er god å ha; men begynner det ikke å bli litt lenge siden disse landene var kolonier? Norge var også en koloni. Og hva med f.eks Etiopia, de har aldri vært en koloni. På den annen side var Kina en koloni. Har du noen gang tatt deg bryet med å sjekke hvor bra "var koloni en gang" forklarer dataene?
Nei, fordi du forsøker ikke å forstå verden ved å se på data og finne forklaringen som matcher dem best, men starter i stedet fra en ideologisk konklusjon: Alle mennesker er helt like. Det kan være veldig lærerikt å spørre deg selv hvorfor du gjør dette.
> Utdanning påvirker IQ i svært stor grad.
Du må nok bestemme deg for å enten mene at "IQ er absolutt pseudovitenskap" eller at vi har pålitelig forskningsbasert kunnskap om hvordan utdanning påvirker IQ. Begge deler går ikke.
Again, to anyone who is actually familiar with the state of the science will recognize the issue. For such a charged subject with a history of ideological leanings, merely posting a few studies doesn't settle things. "Here's a few studies, QED". That's not how it works.
If you're actually interested, here is an interview with one of the leading experts in the field:
> Neuroscience approaches have already made intelligence research more mainstream and ready for inclusion in policy discussions. For example, the single most important factor that predicts school success, by far, is the student’s intelligence. Social economic status, family resources, school and teacher quality all pale in comparison. The data showing this is overwhelming. Yet, the word “intelligence” is virtually absent from all discussions about education policies in the United States, and many other countries.
A well reputed book for general readers is Intelligence by Stuart Ritchie.
Genetic fallacy handler om at afvise noget pga. dets ophav (genesis), fx hvem der har opfundet en test (irrelevant).
Der er ikke noget evidens for at testene måler forskellige ting i forskellige grupper. Der er omvendt set masser af evidens for at de måler omtrent det samme. Dette ses fx ved at se på rank order correlation for item sværhedsgraderne (bedre ville være at være en IRT analyse, men item data er svære at finde). Der er lavet mange sådanne sammenligninger, og de finder cirka det samme. Se fx Rushton's 2002 studie fra Sydafrika. Gennemsnit r = .90.
Dit indlæg er uklart, så det er ikke nemt at vide hvad du gerne vil have svar på. Måske du hellere skulle læse en introduktion til emnet snarere end at stille mig 100 spørgsmål. Stuart Ritchie og Richard Haier er begge førende forskere og har begge indenfor de seneste år udgivet introduktionsbøger om emnet.
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877 https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/1107089778
(Jeg har læst begge.)
> I would argue that both genetics and the environment have an effect on intellect
Of course. Nobody with any sense who has looked at the research denies that, everybody on the herediterian side of the argument acknowledges that. Don't set up a strawman.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you write: yes, IQ can be seen as a ceiling, and you still need a nurturing environment to actually reach that ceiling.
We most likely just differ where I believe the plot of IQ-vs-nurturing-factor on the Y vs X axis is very steep, i.e. one runs into diminishing returns very quickly, while you seem to believe it is a much more gradual slope.
Also, I believe the evidence so far points in the direction of there being population group differences, which you probably don't. I wish there wasn't, but that's what it looks like, although the question has certainly not been settled.
Other than that, let me just add that there are solid critiques out there of both the interpretation of the Flynn effect as a real increase of fluid intelligence (i.e. Spearman's g-factor), and that Eyferth study. I would advice you to look them up and make your mind up from what the data says, and not just your prior beliefs and wishes for how the world ideally should be.
(On a side note, that one Eyferth study is not only the strongest study on the side of nurture being the most important, but pretty much the only such study. And it has significant weaknesses. The number of studies -- mostly with better methodology than the Eyferth study -- coming down on the side of "IQ is mostly heritable" is at least in the hundreds.)
As for more information about the herediterian arguments, I've heard that <em>"Intelligence: All That Matters"</em> by Stuart Ritchie is a great primer, and it's recent.
The data on iq being valid, largely heritable, and predictor of a variety of vactors, and that there are differences in average iqs between population has proven Murray right.
The only thing that’s being debated is whether this differences in average iqs is 100% environmental or less than 100%.
And this is not settled and I don’t think it will be until more is discovered about intelligence and genome sequences
It’s incredibly unfair to paint his as pettling nazi science just because you disagree with him on that one question or you dislike his policy recommendations. The data has shown him more right than wrong.
If you want a good, easy to read, a summary on current iq science, this is a good read.